One of the root assumptions of astrophysics, that the solar system bodies are related to each other by formation, is quite easy to fall for.

These four objects are more than likely strangers. Objects that are orbiting each other for a short while. Objects that are in completely different stages to their evolution. It also shows a good reference for sizes between them. It would be even better if someone could place objects in between the Sun and Jupiter as well between Jupiter and the Earth to account for a much richer series of evolution that all astrons experience.

Let me be clear. It could be possible that the mainstream's acceptance of objects ONLY being 4.5 billion years old is a very low limit. Just thinking about it... I could seriously consider that their evolutionary timelines stretch beyond many hundreds of billions of years. I overview that in a short video:

Thursday, December 17, 2015

I've noticed something strange about the assumptions establishment astronomy uses to do their "science".

1. They all objects forming "as is". If a sun like star forms it formed as is, it couldn't have possibly been a different mass in its past. Same with the Earth, the Earth was always the same size, same with Jupiter/Neptune, all the red dwarfs/brown dwarfs and objects in the entire galaxy.

2. In stellar metamorphosis, the star forms and then evolves, losing mass. This meaning the objects we see in the night sky will not always remain their same diameter, mass or have the same luminosity. This is the big difference between establishment astrophysics and stellar metamorphosis.

Restated:

1. Stars, brown dwarfs and even Earth sized bodies did not evolve to their current physical properties, they formed "as is". A star, a brown dwarf and an Earth sized body are not related what so ever.

2. Stars slowly evolve into brown dwarfs, which evolve even more slowly into Earth sized bodies. (They are all astrons, young, middle aged and old).

I'll let my readers determine which one makes more sense. I guess it is a Darwinian type revolution. Humans evolving from apes? Impossible!

Well, Earth evolved from a much younger hotter star, so did the other large objects in our solar system. It means establishment astrophysics and astronomy are fundamentally misguided.

If you'll notice, the temperature of M0 to M9 drops 1500 Kelvin. The radius diminishes close to a factor of 10, and the luminosity almost falls off the chart. .015 the luminosity of the Sun for M9 red dwarfs.

Why not just keep on going to M10, M11, M12, M13, M14 based on temperature measurements? No need. They have temperature measurements encompassing brown dwarfs between 2200 and 750K.

This means for red dwarfs the temp field is ~1500 K, and for brown dwarfs it is 1450K. An almost full 3000K drop in temperature as the stars evolve from being visible and over half the size of the Sun, to not having a visible spectrum.

The star begins disappearing in these two classifications, red and brown dwarf stages of evolution. That's pretty cool and of course, not mentioned in the accepted literature. The accepted literature has stars as keeping their mass as the evolve, yet clearly we see that isn't the case. As they cool and die they shrink and lose mass, meaning any evolutionary models which rely on mass determining what happens to the star are not only incomplete, but misguided.

When a star evolves it passes though a brown dwarf stage, then can be free floating if it doesn't have a host star to orbit (as it continuously evolves becoming a rocky world in its center, forming the new life hosting "planet" in its interior).

Its easy! Big, hot and bright (what they call stars).... smaller, gaseous, not so bright (what they call brown dwarfs)... smaller, rocky (differentiated) not shining any longer (what they call planet), dead cold world that smashes into other bigger bodies making shrapnel (asteroids/meteorites)...